Could Maine Food Sovereignty Be Basis of National Political Sovereignty Model?

commonsense-coverI started this blog ten years ago to report on events and issues I thought the mainstream news media were either ignoring or misrepresenting when it came to regulation of small farms, and especially small dairy farms distributing raw milk.

In the process, I poked both the mainstream media and government agencies I thought were badly reporting events and data. I went after media for simply accepting CDC data on raw milk and other food safety illnesses, without looking at underlying assumptions, and I went directly after the CDC and the U.S. FDA for misinterpreting data about raw milk and raw milk cheese.

In the process, I think those of us in favor of food choice made some strides. The number of states sanctioning raw milk has increased, the number of legal/regulatory cases against small dairies has decreased, and the pressure to restrict availability of raw-milk cheese has seriously stalled.

In all this conflict, I never accused a media outlet or a government agency of fabricating a story, of publishing what we are now calling “fake news.” That’s because I never saw such an example, even in situations where I vehemently disagreed with the portrayal of events or interpretation of data.  (That isn’t to say fake news hasn’t been published—but eventually with acknowledgment, and embarrassment, by the media affected.)

Yet I now see readers of this blog or on Facebook with whom I’ve interacted over the years respond in recent weeks to my posts or comments by immediately discounting any references to the NY Times, or other mainstream media, as not to be believed, and thus not to be a factor in any discussion. Recent case in point is Gary Ogden, who argues, following my previous post: “It is incredibly naive to trust the New York Times, or any of the mainstream media. Fake news? A partial list: WMD in Iraq. The Warren Commission Report. The 9/11 Report. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident. ‘The light at the end of the tunnel.’ Just the obvious ones. It is, as well, the framing of the stories, and the multitude of topics that are internally censored (no questioning of vaccine policy allowed, ever).”

It seems absurd to have to say it, but none of the examples listed by Ogden originated with the media. The media reported on these incidents or reports put out by government officials or commissions. There was no way for the media to know the real situation about the weapons of mass destruction claims by American intelligence (and accepted by many other countries), until various inspectors, including U.S. troops, disproved them. (Not to say the U.S. government wasn’t terribly negligent and deceitful, to effect we became involved in a brutal war that led to destruction throughout the Mideast.) The Warren Commission issued a report on the assassination of President John Kennedy, which was the first official assessment of how the killing occurred. It has been the subject of endless debate and discussion and countervailing theories, and to this day there isn’t a final word on the subject. Similar situations with the other examples listed.

I’m not sure what the point is even supposed to be—that the media should have known and reported the “real” story behind these situations before the government reports? That the media shouldn’t have published the government versions because the media should assume the government versions are wrong, or fake? If not, then whose version of the events should be published?

Returning to the example that ignited the “fake news” debate here: the investigation of a report that the Democrats were busing in paid demonstrators to protest Trump’s election right after Nov. 8. The NY Times reporters interviewed the man who came up with the “news,” which he readily acknowledged wasn’t real news. He had seen a bunch of buses, and then extrapolated, without evidence, that they must be associated with the demonstrators. It’s basic investigative journalism, going back over the chronology of events to determine what actually occurred. Yet any number of people, including several here, refuse to even read it because it comes from the NY Times.

As I told one individual who gave me that response regarding another issue, based on my providing a link to a NY Times report, if you’re going to reject out of hand any documentation that comes from mainstream media, and not provide other documentation in its place, then there really isn’t a basis for any kind of rational discussion.

Presumably, this new rigidity in thinking is related to our country’s ongoing political upheaval. Clearly, many Americans have come to lose all trust in the mainstream news media. Clearly, much of the disillusionment stems from the drumbeat of criticism from Donald Trump, who disparages the media in general, especially media that might question or criticize him in any way. And now we learn it is quite the thing by wealthy business people to try to quash the media— the NY Times Sunday in its magazine documented a campaign by a handful of business tycoon billionaires (including Trump) to systematically try to intimidate the media through libel-based lawsuits. It’s well worth reading, simply to understand better the ins and outs of libel law, and how these tycoons want to use it to restrict freedom of the press.

One more time, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with questioning any publication’s account of events, or interpretation of events, especially if you have reason to suspect the presentation is inaccurate. No one has a monopoly on truth.

But there’s a difference between questioning and debating, and refusing even to read or listen. No one knows where this new disdain for a free press is headed, but here is my prediction: The ongoing efforts to trample freedom of the press will come bundled with other squashing of rights (with the exception of gun rights). As a result, we’re headed toward some kind of civil conflict. It may not be a civil war of the type that nearly destroyed this country 150 years ago, but it could be bitter enough that it leads to a serious disintegration of our union. Already there are rumbles from a few independent-minded states and cities of rejection of the likely coming new agenda. San Francisco lawmakers recently passed a resolution resolving to defend the city’s undocumented immigrants, its gay residents, and others. There is talk in California of outright secession. Mayors of other cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, and Seattle have reaffirmed their status as “sanctuary cities.”

To me, this kind of thing is in keeping with the move in Maine that has led some 16 local towns to pass ordinances for food sovereignty, and keep passing them despite a veto of the move by the state’s supreme court. These towns are practicing food freedom as an option to steer clear of over-regulated food. Why shouldn’t other cities and towns seek ways to avoid restrictions of human rights, including deportations of local residents back to Mexico or other places, of restrictions on women seeking abortions, of gays seeking to have families, and so on and so forth?

One thing is for sure: A free press will be as essential to keeping people informed about the coming challenges, including about the moves to restrict the media, as it was in 1776, when journalist Thomas Paine published Common Sense, to rouse Americans to revolt. He published the booklet anonymously, because we didn’t yet have freedom of the press, and he could have been arrested and executed for what he did.


Congratulations to Canadian farmers Michael Schmidt and Montana Jones, on the dropping of charges in connection with a “sheep-napping” case four years ago. An Ontario judge agreed with the defendants the the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) was unreasonably delaying the case. The farmers’ victory is testimony to their resistance against government retribution and intimidation in connection with the slaughter of rare Shropshire sheep that the CFIA was convinced was carrying a dangerous disease that could spread widely among area sheep. The government had gone to the extreme tactic of convincing a judge to enforce a press blackout of the proceedings–something I fought on this blog. And here is a report from a national Canadian paper, on today’s proceedings and background on the case.


108 comments to Could Maine Food Sovereignty Be Basis of National Political Sovereignty Model?

  • Jack Moore

    It is incredibly naive NOT to trust reporting by the New York Times or to expect perfection from any media outlet. TheTimes aspires to the highest standard of journalistic integrity. Their resources for investigative journalism are among the best in the the country.

  • Gary Ogden

    David: My distrust of, and disgust with, the media, and particularly the New York Times, has nothing to do with Trump. It has to do mainly with the nearly total censorship of any questioning of vaccine safety, efficacy, or policy. This is internal censorship, coming from the highest levels of the editorial staff, and it occurs in virtually every newspaper in the land (as well as broadcast and most on line media). When a few dozen measles cases occurred in California last year, the media, doing the bidding of the CDC public relations machine (which it funds to the tune of hundreds of millions per year-see the Association of Public Health Administrators budget), went into overdrive to scare the public into thinking it a dire emergency. Merck stock jumped. Then the NYT gave the bully pulpit to Paul Offit, a notorious and wealthy vaccine developer (and bully), but allowed not a word from any parent of a vaccine-injured child, from any physician who had seen and treated vaccine injury, from any scientist alarmed at the toxicity of aluminum nano particles, which nearly all the pediatric vaccines have, or the far worse neurotoxic synergy between aluminum and mercury, particularly in infants, whose brains won’t be fully developed for five or six years (82% of the flu vaccine doses produced this year contain mercury, and infants are getting it in utero, and at six months). Not a word, David, and this censorship goes on every day throughout the land. The autism rate is now 1 in 45. We have, in this nation, a nightmare of vaccine injury. And it will get much worse as these children age out of the customary services we provide for children but not adults. This is already happening, as cash-strapped states are left to cope with the damage. You don’t remember childhood, David? Nearly all of us got measles and nearly all of us recovered (the mortality rate from measles in the five years before the vaccine was licensed in 1963 was 1-2/100,000), with the bonus of lifetime immunity and a robust immune system. Not pleasant to go through, but that’s life, a week or two, and it was finished, unlike the lifetime of chronic illness from vaccine injury. The head of the Public Health Service said, at the time of licensing, “We didn’t create the vaccine because we needed to, but because we could.” In other words, driven by technology, and without any consideration of human health. This is not the only reason, but the main one, that I feel revulsion at our media. I feel the same way about our local paper, which I cancelled last year, after it printed yet another slanderous editorial about the good Dr. Wakefield. You can keep your head in the sand, David, concerning the capture of the media by powerful economic interests, but that won’t make it go away. You are an honorable journalist, one of the few left, and I appreciate what you do, but you can’t deny that the CIA has owned selected journalists since the 1950’s to plant stories favorable to government policy, and Pharma owns editorial boards virtually without exception, to further their economic interest in their growth industry, which is vaccine revenue. They would quickly go bankrupt without the ad revenue.

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      I’m glad you narrowed down your media concerns, and I’m not surprised the biggest one is the vaccine safety issue. I know that, for me as a journalist, it’s been the most vexing issue I’ve seen. So vexing, in fact, that I’ve written little about it. It’s one of those issues that seems more complicated than I can comprehend for the purposes of writing about it….so I’ve avoided it.

      It reminds me some of the time in 1960s and 1970s, when metropolitan dailies ran supreme, in significant measure because of all the advertising they received from local department stores. One of the unspoken rules for reporters was that you didn’t try to write negative news articles about any of the big department stores, because they would never get published, and you might lose your job as well. Today, I think we see some of this with the network news shows, which are heavily sponsored by Big Pharma, and very reluctant to broadcast negative news about prescription drugs in general.

      It’s difficult to overstate the damage done by Andrew Wakefield’s research. I don’t even know any more what of his research might be accurate, but I do know that the medical profession has gone after him with a vengeance. It would be as if some prominent researcher came up with data questioning the CDC’s premises about food safety, and then was found to have made some analytical or other blunders….the public health profession would come down mercilessly, even if the CDC approach truly was in question (which I’ve argued it is, but that’s for another time).

      I think the MSM was actually quite captivated by Wakefield for a time, and gave him a lot of publicity. But reporters no doubt felt “taken” when problems came up with his work, and have since opted for the “safe” approach (for them) and accepted the CDC/medical reassurances when in doubt. That screwup has made it very difficult to obtain research data, despite all the examples cited by families with autistic children (and I’ve met quite a few of them).

      While I know the NYTimes and other MSM have given much space to Paul Offit and his defense of vaccination, I don’t think it’s been quite as black-and-white as you suggest. I found a very negative NY Times review last year of a book by Paul Offit, criticized him for sloppy research:

      And then a notice about that negative review in NaturalNews:

      As for the CIA using journalists to plant stories….I’ve read the accusations, and I wouldn’t doubt it happens. Personally, I’ve known and worked with dozens and dozens of journalists, and never had reason to think that one journalist or another is on the take from the CIA. It should be noted that the CIA has over the years sought out all kinds of professionals for info based on their travels to areas of national security interest. I suspect, though, that the CIA is very careful about seeking out journalists, since they tend to be nonconformists, even rebels, and might be tempted to turn a CIA request into a news story. Guess I’m saying I don’t think it’s as widespread as you might assume.

      • Gordon Watson

        OK, I’ll give you an example of what ‘fake news’ looks like, on the internet. The Website “Barfblog” relentlessly demonizes raw milk. Yesterday, the worst he could do, was, puke-out the 30-year-old report of children sickened after drinking raw milk at a commercial dairy farm. URL

        Although I, and others, regularly post comments attempting to educate its webmaster, he will not admit the difference between raw milk from CAFOs, versus REAL MILK produced by artisanal dairies intended for human consumption.

        The guy has what amounts to a fixation on ‘food poisoning porn’ … the statistics about Leafy raw greens are scary! it’s quite edifying, to plow- through the articles about outbreaks from all foodstuffs OTHER THAN raw milk. For instance = recently, dozens of children got sick traceable to a petting zoo. Some of them very seriously ill in intensive care, with HUS. But do we see the resident harpy Mary McG-Martin? calling for petting zoos to be outlawed?

        His own data proves that instances of harm from drinking raw milk, are so far below the level of constituting a “public health hazard”, that, if it weren’t for the mighty efforts of Doug Powell / Bill Marler, we’d never hear about them.

      • Gary Ogden

        David: There was no damage done by Dr. Wakefield’s research, in fact, quite the contrary. This research was conducted by a team of thirteen, including Professor John Walker Smith, at the time the world’s leading pediatric gastroenterologist, Dr. Wakefield, Dr. Simon Murch and ten others. They were pioneers, and their discovery of ileocolitis comorbid with autism is now accepted by the mainstream, and thought to occur in about 70% of those with an ASD diagnosis. This research has been replicated in Canada, the U.S, Venezuela, and Australia. It represents good science. And the CDC itself conducted a study to test the hypothesis that the MMR increased the likelihood of regression to autism. What did they find? That it indeed does, if given prior to 36 months. What they do with these findings? Threw them in a “big garbage can” according to one of the authors of the study, Dr. William S. Thompson, who has whistleblower status. He is awaiting a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee, and has been waiting 28 months. They are simply too cowardly to issue it, and open this vast can of worms. This is the subject of the film Vaxxed, and the book “Vaccine Whistleblower.” If you want to understand how this fine man was bushwhacked by disreputable elements in the British ruling class to protect the profits of SmithKline Beechum, read Dr. Wakefield’s book, “Callous Disregard,” and Dr. David L. Lewis’ book, “Science for Sale.” Also read what John Stone has written about it on Age of Autism. The CDC is just as RFK, Jr. has characterized it, “a cesspool of corruption.” Remember Tuskegee? Agent Orange? The swine flu con? The sleaze goes back a long way. They cannot be trusted. This is why those of us in the health freedom movement are delighted with the choice of Dr. Price for Secretary of DHHS, which has the mainstream media howling in protest. It is time for the swamp to be drained, for the end of pseudoscience in service to pharmaceutical company profits. For an end to the quackery of vaccination, which is damaging our children, and adults as well.
        I did not mean to imply that there are not plenty of fine journalists working today; it is management that is censoring anything which would affect ad revenue. What you’ve written about Dr. Wakefield’s research is a prime example of the power of the press to create the reality they want to create. You and many others have accepted these lies as truth, because they have been repeated so many times in the echo chamber which passes for the fourth estate. We have no press any longer. I miss reading the newspaper with my morning coffee. The fairy tale we’ve been taught about our nation from childhood is just that, a fairy tale. If you wish to be disabused of this fairy tale, read “The Devil’s Cheesboard.”

  • Diana Gumpert Douglas

    Thank you for a thoughtful and important article on the freedom of the press. I feel we need to be vigilant in making sure that we have a free press.

    • Shana Milkie

      So true! A free press is fundamental for an informed citizenry, and hence, democracy.

      • Blesse\'d are the Cheese Makers

        Correction. Please.

        We are NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.

        I agree with you, however, that a free press “is fundamental for an informed citizenry.”

  • mark mcafee mark mcafee

    Thank you for your comment on vaccination injury and risk. I totally agree with most of your assessment. The media somehow treats the CDC as “the never to be questioned unbiased standard for truth” and health for all of us and even the world.

    The CDC and their counterparts in the FDA and the industries that they regulate and represent have provided a deep disservice to America by their bias and unwillingness to address the real data and the tons of EU studies on raw milk as well as vaccination risk. Time and time again…I have sent letters to the CDC and FDA begging them to look at their own data and draw proper conclusions based on real studies in the EU….they will not even return a call or acknowledge real facts. Now…I sue them ( FTCLDF ) and use the FOIA data that I received from them in the lawsuit to get them to open their eyes.

    We must ask ourselves why??

    We must not forget that the medical community moves at a snails pace with regards to progress and new learning. The public, the internet and the EU moves at warp speed. The human genome project now just 13 years old stood the entire western theory of medicine on its head. That huge change is extremely threatening to doctors that were trained to provide a shot or a pill for every ill.

    There is a deep indoctrination among the universities, the scientists, the pharma system etc… backed by huge money. Even how insurance drives medicine etc.

    The one hope that I hold out for Trump is that he may culture shock the FDA and Big Pharma into a new way of thinking and doing. I am not going to hold my breathe….but there is always hope. We will see what kind of pharma and medicine policies the HHS comes up with under Trump.

    If we had a single payer insurance system and made medicine a cost center and no longer a profit center for America….things would change over night. For as long as medicine is driven by profit….illnesses will continue to get worse. Why cure anything?….that would be acting against the medical community interests. When prevention makes money…then medicine will change!!!

  • Blesse\'d are the Cheese Makers

    During the pre-revolutionary days in the mid-1700’s, there were two major print mediums that existed which were used to disseminate information; 1) pamphlets and 2) newspapers. “Common Sense,” written by Thomas Paine, was self-described as a “pamphlet.” As Mr. Gumpert points out, “Common Sense,” written under a pseudonym, was very influential on the eve of the American Revolution.

    Paine wrote this document in a succinct, readable style and “Common Sense” quickly became a “must read” for the colonists who advocated secession from England. John Adams is quoted to have said, “Without the pen of the author of “Common Sense,” the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.”

    Pamphlets, newspapers, books, broadsides and other printed materials were circulated all over the colonies to spread information. Much information and misinformation was published in many of these publications and most of the authors who penned these documents used pseudonyms. Pseudonyms were used because the authors feared retribution from a tyrannical government. Sound familiar?

    The printed word at the time, as Robert G. Parkinson points out, “acted as a binding agent that mitigated the chances that the colonies would not support one another when war with Britain broke out in 1775.”

    After winning the American Revolution, the First Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights in an effort to ensure that the Press would not be regulated, subjugated or censored by the government.

    All of these “fake news” allegations of today are just another attempt to regulate and subjugate free speech and free press. This terminology, of course, originates from the political left, just as the term “hate speech” originated from the political left. (See recent article in Breitbart — “NPR Finds ‘Godfather’ of Fake News is a Liberal Democrat in California,” by Joel B. Pollak).

    “Political correctness” likewise originated with the liberal left. The “Fake News” mantra, that just magically appeared during the last three or four weeks, is just another epithet to throw at a conservative to make that conservative sit down and shut up. Instead of advancing a well-reasoned argument, just call someone a “bigot” “racist” “homophobe” “xenophobe” etc., etc., etc. and that should do it, right? Or . . . simply accuse them of gleaning their information from a “Fake News” source.

    The bottom line is that I have seen nearly all news sources on both sides of the political spectrum spin and weave a story line at one time or another. Sadly, some spin it to the point of non truth. However, ferreting out the truth of the matter is up to me. It is not up to some gatekeeper deciding what is allowed to be disseminated and what isn’t.

    Okay, so the story about the buses in Austin turned out to be untrue. So what. Why has the national mainstream news media gone silent on the incident that occurred at Ohio State? Is it because this incident does not fit with the mainstream mantra that radical Islam is not a threat to us? Silence can be just as big of a “fake news” item as writing and tweeting an embellished non truth.

    To conclude, the internet is our last vestige of freedom. If we keep up with this “fake news” crap, we are only inviting Big Brother to come in and decide what is the truth and what is not the truth. When that happens, and it already has to some extent, we will indeed be living in Orwell’s “1984”.

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      CheeseMaker, I don’t want to seem like a shill for the NY Times, but the Ohio State incident was on its front page this morning, including suggestions that the attack might be terrorism. The article was written by a team of three reporters, which is a lot of manpower.

      Interesting, it also had an op-ed piece arguing against having Facebook get involved in screening “Fake News”, by a journalist. I think he’s agreeing with your concern about “big brother” screwing up the Internet.

      You raise some good questions about Fake News. I agree with you that people should make their own judgments about the veracity of information coming out via the media. I’m not sure the reason fake news has become a more prominent issue is because of a liberal agenda, though. The reason I’ve become more aware of it is that there seems to be a lot more of it…and amazingly, it’s nearly all designed to make “liberals” look mercenary or unpatriotic. The buses in Austin story was designed to make it look like liberals were paying people who otherwise wouldn’t care to protest Trump. The story that Obama had outlawed the pledge of allegiance is another such story, to make him look seriously unpatriotic.Even more sinister, and violations of copyright law, are the fake stories that go out with the CNN or Washington Post (or other publication) logo, to make it look as if a MSM organization put it out. Not sure you’d care for some huckster using your cheese label to sell some slop–professional journalists are the same–we hate to see flim flam types messing with our brand. Here’s an interesting assessment of Fake News by a professional journalistic organization:

  • mark

    The REAL Fake-News (MSM, or what I call Dino-Media) have a LONG track record of pushing collectivism, parroting “authority” and just plain flat-out lying! But more often the lies are by the very deceptive use of “by omission”! This is why I personally have not watched Dino-Media for over 10yrs. Because the problem of omission etc… is so insidious, even an “alert” person can have their opinion altered when they hear something over and over and over again. The whole “eat whole grains” BS is just one such example…

    One of the NYTimes biggest lies (and which its author Walter Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize in 1932) were the series of reports praising Joseph Stalin!!! Just one of his believing/following authority reports was Duranty’s denial that Stalin was starving Ukranians etc…

    To this day, the NYTimes has NOT rescinded the award. Even a historian hired by the Pulitzer Board to evaluate the situation said “Times should Lose Pulitzer form the 30’s…”

    Of course, I suggest one to research this themselves… don’t take my word for it…

    • Gordon Watson

      more along the same line, is the way the NY Times went to Cuba and interviewed Fidel Castro in hiding prior to him seizing power. Then reported ‘Castro is not a communist’. Somehow failing to notice , let alone investigate … certainly NOT report! … that Castro and Ernesto Che Gueverra had been trained by the Soviets to foment violent revolution. Contrast the obituaries of Pinochet versus Castro, in the New York Times ….set along side the undeniable atrocities perpetrated by El Commandante Castro, Pinochet looks like a boy scout. Yet Pinochet is called “a brutal dictator”. Castro is revered. A Solzenhitzen told us = ‘ the way the world’s press treats communism, speaks volumes as to who it’s ultimately working for’

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      A number of mainstream media have disgusting past histories. Time Magazine was for many years to the right of Gordon Watson. The NYTimes also ignored the Holocaust, for all practical purposes. I think the lesson isn’t that you don’t read such publications, but rather that you monitor a variety of publications/sites to help you make judgments about what’s going on. No one has a monopoly on truth.

      • Gordon Watson

        “to the right of Gordon Watson” ?! = … in Canada, people any farther-out than me, that way on the political spectrum, are facing jail time.

      • mark

        Apparently Dino-Media is even worse than I was aware of. Even many well known “journalists” (Dan Rather, Keith Obermann, Seymour Hersh, Glenn Greenwald etc…) have admitted or acknowledge there is vast SELF-CENSORSHIP! This new article has much of the detail… and goes into some of the reasons why… which really shouldnt be that surprising…

        Glenn Greenwald:
        “Put another way, the company that owns The Washington Post is almost entirely at the mercy of the Federal Government and the Obama administration — the entities which its newspaper ostensibly checks and holds accountable. “By the end of 2010, more than 90 percent of revenue at Kaplan’s biggest division and nearly a third of The Post Co.’s revenue overall came from the U.S. government.” The Post Co.’s reliance on the Federal Government extends beyond the source of its revenue; because the industry is so heavily regulated, any animosity from the Government could single-handedly doom the Post Co.’s business — a reality of which they are well aware:

        The Post Co. realized there were risks attached to being dependent on federal dollars for revenue — and that it could lose access to that money if it exceeded federal regulatory limits.

        “It was understood that if you fell out of grace [with the Education Department], your business might go away,” said Tom Might, who as chief executive of Cable One, a cable service provider that is owned by The Post Co., sat in at company-wide board meetings.

        Beyond being reliant on federal money and not alienating federal regulators, the Post Co. desperately needs favorable treatment from members of Congress, and has been willing to use its newspaper to obtain it:…”

        • D. Smith D. Smith

          @ Mark: Jeff Bezos owns the WaPo. He also owns Amazon.

        • Blesse\'d are the cheese makers

          I don’t want to go all “conspiracy theorist” on you, but six (6) entities own 90 percent of the MSM. See below:

          That assertion comes from several sources, not just one or two.

          With that said, simple logic indicates how simple it is for these six entities to control the narrative. When you add the fact that “journalists” who work for these six mega outfits are privy to all the interconnected entities to these six controlling corporations, it is a wonder we ever get the real picture or the facts on anything. Probably have a better chance of getting a snowball in hell.

          On top of that, entities like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Washington Post, etc., are the reigning kings and queens of “Fake News.”

          We are way down the rabbit hole, I’m afraid.

          • David Gumpert David Gumpert

            This is highly misleading, in any number of ways. Doesn’t allow for NY Times, as just one example of MSM. Doesn’t include dozens and dozens of magazines, major online pubs (like Slate, Huffington Post, Yahoo News, etc., etc.) which have become part of MSM. In other words, this is old and inaccurate news.

            But people are increasingly believing what reinforces their views, and not believing anything that contradicts their views. You might enjoy this article, even though it comes from the highly mistrusted NY Times:

          • Gordon Watson

            what was the New York Times reporting December 8th 1941? A sneak attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese … supposedly. Only 3/4 of a century later, it is proven that the government of the united States contrived the attack as the way to put the country into the war in Europe, even though its President had campaigned to keep it out. Beyond question = the War Party, delivered America to the Usurers. People who dared to speak against it, were tried for sedition. Have we seen a line of print calling it what it was : Treason : in the acres of paper, since, published by your friend, The Grey Lady? No, fake news that it always was … it’s history as propagandized by the “victors”, and they’re sticking to that story … regardless of the hard evidence otherwise

            What’s going on in the Middle East, this very hour = is more of the same

          • Blesse\'d are the cheese makers

            And Mr. Gumpert stated on Nov. 29, 2016

            “It reminds me some of the time in 1960s and 1970s, when metropolitan dailies ran supreme, in significant measure because of all the advertising they received from local department stores. One of the unspoken rules for reporters was that you didn’t try to write negative news articles about any of the big department stores, because they would never get published, and you might lose your job as well. Today, I think we see some of this with the network news shows, which are heavily sponsored by Big Pharma, and very reluctant to broadcast negative news about prescription drugs in general.”

            So here is my point. Do you honestly believe this has changed in any way with any given media outlet? I submit to you that this paradigm actually controls the narrative today, across the board.

            Let’s take the NY Times as an example since you seem to always circle back to that media outlet. Since you quoted Yahoo as an example of “reliable,” I call your attention to Yahoo Finance. Please take a look at their page showing ownership interest in The New York Times Company (NYT).


            If you look at the Direct Holders, Top Institutional Holders and Top Mutual Fund Holders of the NYT, and then look at all the holdings of the Top Institutional and Mutual Fund holdings of those who hold NYT, my guess is that you will find Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Auto, etc., etc.

            In addition, I also bet you will find that the NY Times (or someone financially connected with the NYT) receives funding from the Ad Council, which is basically a government funded propaganda machine that dishes out money to many media outlets to run their government sponsored social engineering mantra. (Some day, I’d like to see a complete expose’ on how much money our government spends on this BS as well as how many cottage industries are linked into the cash flow of this boondoggle — but that’s a subject for another day).

            Is it your position now that all of this interconnectivity does not sway what the NY Times decides to run with?

            As you have hinted at, we can also begin a discussion of “The Halo Effect” as well as “Confirmation Bias.” I must admit that I am likely guilty of that to some degree, but . . . if I may be so bold and with all due respect — I submit to you that you are guilty of “Confirmation Bias” and “The Halo Effect” to some degree as well.

            Again, we must all be diligent in ferreting out the accuracy and veracity of any news item from any news source at any time.

            I close with this. Rather than blaming the internet for the current discussion about “Fake News” as though “Fake News” is some new phenomenon, I’d say the internet is the reason we now understand how long “Fake News” has been going on, long before the internet came into existence in my view.

          • David Gumpert David Gumpert

            I think where your analysis runs into trouble is in trying to paint the mainstream media as some kind of monolith. Yes, media companies are often large corporations, in business to make money. News and information, commonly referred to as “content,” is their product.

            But that content is produced by individuals, professional journalists. They’re like professionals of any kind (farmers, cheese makers, lawyers, doctors, etc.)….some are very good at what they do, and others aren’t so good. They all have good days and bad days. Make their share of errors (like misquoting people, spelling names wrong, giving them incorrect titles), try to do better going forward. The good publications admit their errors, via corrections.

            At most publications, journalists propose as many articles to write as they are assigned. In other words, there’s no conspiratorial corporate money men/women assigning articles to be written, based on the Ad Council, or anything else.

            Moreover, journalists at the best publications work apart from the advertising departments. The church-state separation has been undermined in recent years, with pressure for revenue, but it’s still intact at the best publications (like WSJ, NYTimes, Washington Post).

            You and others are correct, that “Fake News” has been around a long time. The problem now isn’t the phenomenon, it’s the rapid increase in quantity. The Internet has helped make it easier than ever to spread fake news. In fact, it’s gotten so bad, it’s actually helping the top quality news organizations. A major investment site published this article about the growing attractiveness of the NYTimes as an investment, largely because of the fake news problem. Stock was up more than 4% today. It’s what helps make America great: in every serious problem, investors find opportunity.


            An excerpt from above article: “With the seeming explosion of “fake news” and little to no desire by social media companies to rein it in, traditional media may grow in stock as it has maintained a relatively solid reputation for fact-based reporting. In an attempt for higher ratings, many traditional media networks and newspaper have stepped into dangerous territory by giving voice to untrustworthy sources that regularly misinform.

            “Many in the public have been able to recognize this phenomenon. The select news outlets that resisted are being rewarded with massive subscription bumps. As other news outlets continue to cut costs and eliminate high expense in-depth journalism, The New York Times is investing in this space. Readers are noticing and subscribing to the times while abandoning some peers. Subscribers are longer lasting and reflect a more positive outlook than simple viewer gains that are inevitable in the lead up to an election.

            “Over the next four years, we are likely to see an onslaught of misinformation from formerly fringe elements of the media. If the 2016 campaign period was any indication, the next few years will likely see a blurring between uncontested facts and skewed innuendo. A recent Buzzfeed poll (don’t worry, the methodology is sound) of 3,105 respondents found that 75% of regular news consumers were unable to distinguish a fake news story from the truth. The new administration may, in part, be adding to the confusion.”

            See, you can make money reading this site!

          • David Gumpert David Gumpert

            One other thing, Cheesemaker, re: all your slams on CA (and other “liberal” outposts). I pose this Q: why is it that these liberal outposts, which you would cast to the sea, are the country’s most prosperous areas? All these areas, especially around major cities like San Francisco, LA, Seattle, Portland, Boston, NYC, are booming. Housing prices are through the roof, salaries are sky high. You cast these areas out to sea, and the U.S. is really struggling economically. But why is it CA has Silicon Valley, Boston has Route 128 tech corridor, NYC rules world commerce? I’ll give you a hint: It’s about education. These places have the best colleges and universities (also bastions of liberalism). These places of higher learning (Stanford, U of CA, MIT, Harvard, NYU, etc., etc.) turn out the entrepreneurs who start the companies that create huge amounts of wealth. Be grateful for these bastions of liberalism, Cheesemaker, they help boost demand for your product.

          • Blesse\'d are the cheesemakers

            Mr. G —

            Thank you for your well-reasoned reply. However, two or more people in a discussion about a given topic sometimes can disagree. That is perfectly okay with me. You are free to advocate for your position as I will advocate for mine. This does not mean that one of us is totally right and one of us is totally wrong. We can probably both cite example after example to bolster our respective positions.

            In this regard, it appears you take issue with my analysis where I “paint the mainstream media as some kind of monolith.” I stand by that analysis as I explain, below.

            Case in point. The “Hands up, don’t shoot” MSM mantra that was introduced to us in the wake of the Ferguson, MO, incident in 2014.

            I call your attention to the following recent exchange on Fox:


            “The ‘hands up, don’t shoot’ lie was propagated by every mainstream liberal media across this country,” Clarke said. “The New York Times, The Washington Post, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, CNN, MSNBC all propagated that ‘hands up, don’t shoot’ lie. It was from that time forward that this concept of fake news was talked about.”

            Now — I have no doubt that someone who is more on the “liberal” end of the spectrum will say, “Well, that’s the Hannity Show and that is Sheriff Clarke, what do you expect?”

            I say, however, that some of us believe that Sheriff Clarke has a valid, verifiable, and undisputable point on this particular issue as it was later discovered. Curing a grand jury inquiry into the case, it was found that Michael Brown’s buddy, the original “source” for the “hands up, don’t shoot” story, was lying out his backside.

            So, this circles me back to the beginning. I believe you advance your points on the “fake news” issue and I understand your arguments and your position on this topic. With that said, I respectfully disagree with you on this one.

            By the way, if folks are flocking to the NYT and other sources you cite so they can get “real” information, there is nothing wrong with that. Go for it. But . . . you somewhat answer the question regarding the alleged dilemma regarding “fake news.” Educated seekers of the truth will ferret whether what they are being told is believable or not — whether this information is put out there on the internet or on some MSM television program or newspaper We do not need a gatekeeper to decide what is “fake” and what is not.

            As far as the low information voters go, I am afraid the lines for them have been blurring for decades with all the “reality” shows out there, weekly dramas, comedies and other shows, all interwoven with “News” commentary. It is a wonder if we ever really get to know the “whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

            I will close with this. I appreciate the discussion. We can have these discussions, hopefully, without resorting to calling each other names. I wish the rest of America would consider this approach during these difficult times.

  • Blesse\'d are the Cheese Makers

    Mr. Gumpert

    Thank you for the “Fact Check” link, “How to Spot Fake News” from Interesting article by Lori Roberson and Eugene Kiely.

    I fact checked the fact checkers and found that is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation and the Annenberg Public Policy Center. has been rated by some as slightly left of center, by others as center and by yet others as slightly right of center. Probably a reasonable place to go to at least get an opinion on a purported “news” item. The take away from “FactCheck” is you should always check a publication’s sources and double check.

    I think that is true of any alleged news item — especially when the “journalist” (notice I put in quotations) uses rhetoric when making the report such as, “So and so, an alleged member of the far right “Alt-Right” did such and such.” — Or, “So and so, an alleged member of the far left radicals, did such and such.” As soon as I see that type of embellishment either way, my BS Meter starts to head to the red line pretty quickly.

    Regarding Facebook and Jessica Lessin’s article in the NY Times “Facebook Shouldn’t Fact Check” — I agree with her conclusion, and I quote from her piece: “I simply don’t trust Facebook, or any one company, with the responsibility for determining what is true.”

    I will add this observation coming from yours truly. I think just about anything published on Facebook should be looked at with intense skepticism (same goes for Twitter). I would also add to her comment, I certainly am against entrusting the government to serve as the information gatekeeper in any scenario.

    I’ll give you this: At least the NY Times put the Op-Ed about “Facegook Shouldn’t Fact-Check” in their Nov. 29, 2016 edition (even though they buried the opinion piece way back there on page A-27).

    As far as “Fake News” publications who purport to be from MSM sources, no offense, but CNN and the Washington Compost are not reliable sources for me in the first place. Just sayin’ . . . no offense intended . . .

    • Joseph Heckman

      See chapter on “Malfunction of the American Media” in the book entitled: Altered Genes Twisted Truth, How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public. By Steven M. Druker.

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      Here’s an interesting take on how Trump essentially uses “fake news” to manipulate the MSM:

      “Trump has revealed that the entire journalistic system is based on the assumption that political actors will stay within certain parameters of truth and sanity. Some are more dishonest than others, but there’s a limit. “The President said this today” coverage can be problematic, but much of the time it’s perfectly reasonable, since he’s the most important person in the political world and his words and beliefs have a profound effect on what happens not just here but around the globe.

      “Trump realizes that when you step outside those limits, you can manipulate the media at will because their normal ways of doing things are inadequate to the task. You can take any idea, no matter how preposterous, and make half the country believe it. And when journalists push back, it’ll only make your supporters more firm in their loyalty.

      “This is part of a broader assault Trump is mounting on almost every institution of public life in America — the government, the media, the education system, even democracy itself. He’s been doing it from the beginning, not only spreading lies in a volume that had never been seen before, but continually arguing that established authority couldn’t be trusted. Unemployment figures? A fiction. The justice system? Bogus. The election? Rigged. In the confusion and rootlessness that remains, the only choice is to turn things over to a strongman who will govern by his whims.”

      One very clever fellow. He understands how media arrogance has angered many people, and he’s figured out how to one-up the media. The end result may not be very pretty, but lots of angry people will have fun getting there.

      • Gordon Watson

        since we’re going on about ‘fake news’, considering what Paul Craig Roberts has to say … [Assistant Treasury Secretary under Ronald Regan] from his interview with Greg Hunter = Economic expert and journalist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts thinks the recent publication of the so-called ‘fake news” list recently published by the Washington Post signals a major turning point for all of the mainstream media (MSM). Dr. Roberts explains, “I think this is the death knell for the mainstream media. I think this list essentially kills the credibility of the mainstream media and certainly the Washington Post. It has demonstrated it is completely devoid of any integrity. I am a former Wall Street Journal editor, and if we had done something like that, Warren Phillips would have fired every one of us. We would have been told to get out. You can’t carry on this kind of assault on people. I think this is a sign of desperation.”

        • David Gumpert David Gumpert

          I read the interview with Paul Craig Roberts, and must say, a lot of it doesn’t make much sense. I was at the WSJ at the time Warren Phillips was publisher and then president of Dow Jones, in the 1970s–I knew him, had a number of extended conversations with him. While he began his career as a journalist, by the 1970s and 1980s, he was a business executive, running a major corporation, and his attention was focused on P&L trends. Fake news wasn’t a problem then (except from the government), because there was no internet. I feel reasonably certain Phillips would not have been pleased if some Russian or Rumanian wise guys had replicated the WSJ logo and spread fake WSJ “news” around all the social media in the name of his “brand”. In fact, I could imagine him taking aggressive legal counteraction.

          Same goes for Roberts’ views of the world equity markets, that they’re all controlled by the U.S. Fed, as a way to keep stocks up and gold down. I’m afraid the Fed just doesn’t have the power to control all markets that way. But that’s been a long-time explanation from gold bugs as to why the price of gold doesn’t soar, the way they feel it should.

          Maybe he was a good editor (I didn’t know him), but he is way out there on economics, and journalism.

  • Mark Mcafee Mark Mcafee

    Question….why did Trump get sent to military boarding school for years and years when he was a kid?
    He admits himself….he was a misbehaving bully. He has not changed a bit. Every single act is ego centric…he is a business bully that is so shallow, a twit will trigger a tirade. We are in for a real ride.

    • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad


      Donald Trump is a complicated individual.

      If he did indeed admit that he was a “misbehaving bully” then that’s a good thing and a step in the right direction. When individuals on the other hand fail to acknowledge their shortcomings and try to portray themselves as something other then what they are, then that can be a real problem. His willingness to reach out to some of his most vocal critics such as Mitt Romney is an admirable leadership quality.

      In the meantime I hold onto this hope, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else”. Winston Churchill

    • Blesse\'d are the Cheese Makers

      Mr. M —

      Sir. You really need to either get back on your meds or go see your therapist. Your unsubstantiated tirades are really getting old. Try to get back on track, will ya? This site is called “The Complete Patient” and we should be dealing with food issues. Yes. I went “political” on here prior to now, but only in response to your idiotic leftist progressive ranting raving BS. You don’t know shit about Trump and neither do I. We will see what happens when it happens.

      • Bob

        I think we do know shit about Trump. His past family business are public record as are much of his current business dealings. We know he can’t speak much beyond that of a 4th grader and that the selection of his cabinet is being done by those standing behind him, mainly Pence. Trump is the dancing monkey for public consumption while the real machine is making the sausage behind the scenes. He had an army of lawyers that carried on his private business while he hobnobbed with stars and politicians in the public. It still didn’t prevent him from having multiple bankruptcies, but it did allow him to walk away each time with his pockets remaining full while those he hired all walked away empty. We have watched him “tweet” to his followers like a gossipy school girl. And Ken, he only reached out to Romney because it made for great press and distracted the public while the machine chose the former head of Exxon as their Sec of State. Trump then met with Kanye West soon afterward….more admirable leadership quality?

  • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

    I certainly hope Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price follows through with his belief and that his philosophy of independent choice and individual autonomy is broadened and expands to other areas such as, enabling consumers the freedom to make informed choice with respect to the food that they consume.

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      Yes, it will be very interesting to see how this unfolds, whether he really has concerns about vaccination, and whether he supports not only food rights, but so-called alternative medicine options. Another view getting a lot of attention is that Price is really part of the Speaker Paul Ryan stealth campaign to drastically reduce government-supported health benefits, including Medicare, which has been an economic necessity for millions of American seniors (something all Canadians have, not just seniors).

      • Gordon Watson

        in Vancouver there’s a 68-day hearing going on in the Supreme Court of BC, which is the culmination of a 20 year ( yes, two decades ) case about whether a doctor can operate outside Canada’s Soviet-style COMPULSORY medical regime. Of course, the question has already been answered, because Dr Brian Day – the Petitioner – has been carrying on business for private profit, all that time. Everybody knows that Canada has a 2-tier medical system. But under this incarnation of red fascism with a smiley-face, one is not allowed to say that aloud. So after 40 years of socialism ruining health care, they’ve found a way to save face … let the judges write the excuses = “mistakes were made but not by us”. It’s the Canadian way

        the good news is : human beings are immeasurably inventive. People will always get what they want, regardless of whether it’s called a free market or a “black market”. The business of health care is no different. As the Western version of “disease maintenance for profit” implodes into an obscenely expensive, statist drug stupor, Informed consumers are taking responsibility for our own health. And the elitist manager-class will be the last to know.

      • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

        Canada’s so-called “Universal” health care system is far from all-inclusive and it is plagued with difficulties.
        First and foremost, the Canadian Medical Association monopolizes Canada’s health care system and it is they… that determine the type medical care that is considered acceptable for funding. Secondly, the system gets bogged down in red tape and cost taxpayers a fortune to operate with incomprehensible projected operating cost (“50% of operational spending in some provinces”) and wait times that are driving politicians to despair and prompting them to consider and adopt a two tier private/public system. Wait times for procedures are such that many Canadians are compelled to travel south of the border to the US in order to get the health care they require.

        I wish you all the best in your attempt in the United States to establish an equitable and viable public healthcare system.

        • Emma Gardner

          To throw in a second point of view, after having over half-a-century of experience in this Canadian public health system — including having had three major operations, four children, and various major and minor illnesses — I have zero complaints about my own experience in the public health system here. Nor do I personally know anyone who has had to travel outside of Canada for any operations or procedures. These events make the news because they are rare – they are not the norm. Also, the CMA has VERY little influence here in BC – our Ministry of Health and the five regional health authorities make the funding decisions.

          • Gordon S Watson

            actually, no. In British Columbia, the directing mind of the disease-maintenance- racket, is = the Patterns of Practice Committee within the BC College of Physicians & Surgeons. Of that statutorily-mandated committee of 5 warm bodies, only a simple majority = 3 = is needed, for a modality to be considered orthodox. Everything else is beyond the pale. All else in the entire medical system issues from that convention of the cult of the White Robe. Best example of how that dictatorship functions, being : the way artificial abortion was authorized lacking any evidence that it is at all, ever, ‘therapeutic’. And I have that admission on official stationary of the College. But what difference does that make, now, eh? Now that BC taxpayers are compelled to participate in the Medical Services Plan, then just shut up and pay up. “We’ll tell you what’s right and wrong”, say the demigods

            after 35 years of socialized medicine in BC, the vultures are coming home to roost. Government has to admit that the growth of the health-care industry portends to consume ALL of the revenue of the state. But since that simply cannot happen, the early adapters are taking matters in to our own hands, right now. Bad money drives out good ; bad communications corrupt good morals, and bad medicine drives people to find their other solutions.

            In today’s National Post, a feature article is = the failure of anti-biotics. Not years from now, rather … today, in a hospital near you. So = Emma Gardener = I’m glad that you had positive outcomes from your exposures to the medical system, … meanwhile, too many do not. One of the prime indicators of the failure of the Western healthcare model, being = iatragenic illness as one of THE leading causes of death in N. America

            Crucial to understanding the role of the Campaign for REAL MILK vis-a-vis the health care crisis, is : the story of how Harry Hoxsey was curing = yes, curing = cancer. Hoxsey refused to give over the formula for his remedy to Morris Fishbein. After which, Fishbein ( founder of the the American Medical Association ) arranged to have Hoxsey persecuted, for decades. That syndrome is repeated throughout history … Jesus of Nazareth was doing not too badly, barnstorming around Galilee, ’til his spectacular cures came to the attention of the Pharisees. They reasoned that if they let him continue healing without a licence, he’d draw away the love of the people, and they’d be “put out of Moses’ seat”. Another example, being : the way the Establishment mis-treated William Donald Kelly for teaching people how to cure = yes, cure = themselves of cancer.

            My overall point being : existence of the cancer industry proves that something is terribly amiss. The public health in America did not get this bad by sheer default : we are ruled by people who hate us

          • Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

            Gordon writes: “…we are ruled by people who hate us”

            That would be true by the old saying that a lying tongue hates those that are afflicted by it.

            Is the august American Heart Association (AHA) one of those lying tongues?

            It is reported that for a payment of 1.7 million dollars in 1954 that the AHA promoted Crisco and bad-mouthed the traditional kitchen ingredients that were intended to be replaced by Crisco, a purely commercial transaction. The bad-mouthing was based on pure fiction, it is reported. If this is true, consider how far down a road of entrapment by corrupting entities we have traveled.

            Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

          • Emma Gardner

            Ah, my friend, Gordon, but the decision-making in the Ministry of Health and by the Health Authorities which report to the Ministry – the meetings and budget/funding decisions – the policy decisions which don’t make front page news or any news at all and that you may not learn about at all unless you find the published Estimates to be exciting reading – that’s what I’m referring to. The doctors are only a union of employees, essentially. They don’t call the shots, they can only make recommendations and lobby the decision-makers, and most of their lobbying is for higher pay for themselves.

          • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

            If there is such a thing as universal health care in this country then let’s indeed make it universal, i.e. all inclusive and all embracing, and allow each person or the parents of a child to decide what care they wish themselves or their child to receive. Go ahead and try to expand healthcare coverage to include alternative modalities and just watch and see who dictates healthcare policy in this country!!!

            “Doctors slam alternative medicine proposal”

            Canadian Medical Association Redefines Human Life

            CMA calls for proof of vaccinations before children can be enrolled in school

          • Gordon S Watson

            Emma Gardner : your comment proves the point to which my screed failed to come (to) = I go back so far I remember “Saint” Tommy Douglas .. “Father of Medicare”. You’ll notice that all the little local hospitals in Saskatchewan are closing down now… even while that province is booming. + Another textbook example of why social-ism IN-evitably fails. When the voters booted him out of Sask-a-bush, Tommy was parachuted into the safest NDP riding in Canada hired by the United Church as a celebrity Pulpit Parrot…. mis-leading the flock to the abject apostasy in which if finds itself now. [ No mere co-incidence that East Burnaby United was one of the strongholds of Freemasonry. ] Since then, God went out of business in that neighbourhood / that congregation is no more.

            ….. but I digress

            the Medical Services Plan was presented to the Electorate of British Columbia as an insurance plan. In which a citizen could participate, or not. But of course, after the requisite waiting-period so taxpayers forgot election promises, the other shoe dropped : participation was made compulsory. And just for good measure ; so-called premiums were rated contingent upon a client filing a return of income!! it never was a genuine “insurance” plan. From the day the Dave Barrett and his NDP crypto commie pals enacted it, “universal healthcare” in BC perfectly demonstrates how “social-ism is only communism without the guns”

            today in BC, the scandal simmering behind the scenes, is : US-based corporations having access to the digitized health-care files of British Columbians, so those corps. can datamine us, for who-knows-what? wicked ends. Which is the ultimate purpose of hO’-Bama-care,

    • Blesse\'d are the cheese makers

      Well, the ghost of Christmas Past finally showed up on this “Food Sovereignty” feed. Never mind that your post has nothing to do with the subject matter of this discourse.

      In response to your post, above, I offer a post from your best friend’s website:

      I do not see raw milk on that post. What’s up with that?

      Stay tuned for the “Best” of 2016. I wager raw milk will not be on that one, either. I realize that is immaterial to you, but it does bear on the issue in my view.

      Additionally, I read the article you posted. Of course, the Ohio Dept. of Ag uses their now infamous weasel words in their “Health Alert”, i.e.: “Later testing confirmed a connection between the illnesses and raw milk from Sweet Grass Dairy.”

      What does “a connection” mean? Either you prove it up and rule out everything else, or you rule the illness cause as “undetermined.” Of course, that has never stopped the agenda, has it.

  • Blesse\'d are the cheese makers

    Thought I’d share this with all the free thinkers on this post:

    The Fence Test
    by Jeff Foxworthy

    Which side of the fence?

    If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

    If a Republican doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
    If a Democrat doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

    If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
    If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

    If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
    If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

    If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
    If a Democrat is down-and-out he wonders who is going to take care of him.

    If a Republican doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
    A Democrat demands that those they don’t like be shut down.

    If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
    A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

    If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
    If a Democrat decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for his.

    If a Republican reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
    A Democrat will delete it because he’s “offended.”

    Well, I forwarded it . . . Are you offended?

    • bora petski

      Wait, … after a good laugh, are you a re publican? Where do those of us that buy neither party line fit in? I suspect that’s a fast growing segment. I despise politics and all those that practice them not that we ever do it ourselves.

        • Joseph Heckman

          > Subject: NJ Legislative Subscription Service
          > Session 2016-2017
          > The following bill(s) have been scheduled for a committee or a legislative session.
          > A696:
          > 12/12/2016 2:00:00 PM Agriculture and Natural Resources
          > Committee Room 15, 4th Floor, State House Annex, Trenton, NJ

        • Blesse\'d are the Cheesemakers

          Thanks, Bora —

          For the link to the article by Mike Adams. I had somewhat forgotten about him after he parted ways with Alex Jones. His article to which you cite is dead on. I need to subscribe to Natural News. Adams is in the good fight just as David Gumpert is.

          Anyway, there are some, even on this blog from time to time, who think the Electoral College should be abolished and that simple majority popular vote should decide the presidential elections in this country — Art. II, Section 1 of Constitution be damned.

          Of course, these folks mainly reside in California, so what would you expect. They’ve done such a great job out there, I cannot imagine why anyone would ever second guess all the great government work going on on the Left Coast — NOT! If the San Andreaus Fault doesn’t obliterate California by depositing coastal California into the Pacific, their Leftist State Government will obliterate them by delivering them into bankruptcy, both moral and financial.

          Be that as it may, I conclude with this . . . be careful, my friend, or someone might accuse you of going all “political” on us.

          Take care.

  • Gordon Watson

    a particular court action to do with raw milk, has finally got right down to the nitty-gritty of property rights in the face of a law of general applicability … raising the same question asked by Agister Alice Jongerden, in our case : “when did private become public?” Which the judge in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, never addressed, let alone answered. The FTCLDF is helping the dairy farmers in Michigan. I predict they’ll win this one.

    • Emma Gardner

      “… raising the same question asked by Agister Alice Jongerden, in our case : “when did private become public?”

      A question relevant in the U.S., but which may not be applicable in Canada where all commerce is regulated in some form or another, particularly agricultural commerce, for example under B.C.’s “Natural Products Marketing Act” (quoted below) and its equivalents in every province (see

      From the NPMA at :

      “1. Definitions:
      ‘marketing’ includes producing, packing, buying, selling, storing, shipping for sale, offering for sale or storage, and in respect of a natural product includes its transportation in any manner by any person;
      ‘natural product’ means a product of agriculture or of the sea, lake or river and an article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from such product;
      ‘regulated product’ means a natural product the regulation of the marketing of which is provided for in a scheme approved or established under this Act;”

      “2 (1) The purpose and intent of this Act is to provide for the promotion, control and regulation of the marketing of natural products, including (a) the prohibition of all or part of that marketing,”

      This piece of trash was passed in 1974 and should be our top priority to get repealed. It and its equivalents across Canada (such as the Farm Products Marketing Act in Ontario, the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act in Alberta, etc.) have robbed Canadians of food freedom.

  • Gary Ogden

    David: Another example of fake news: Remember the AIDS con of the ’80’s and 90’s? Some in the MSM were claiming that we might be facing extinction. We’re still here. This was yet another gift to pharma by the CDC and the MSM, meanwhile perfectly healthy people died as a result of these extremely toxic (developed as chemical weapons) chemotherapy agents called anti-retrovirals, after a positive “HIV” test. Turns out the retrovirus called “HIV” has never been isolated.

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      Gary, see my response to Cheese Maker.

      • Gary Ogden

        David: Not sure which response you’re referring to. I agree that there are some fine journalists working today. Sharyl Attkisson comes to mind. It is management which censors. Even ten years ago it was possible to read an article critical of vaccine policy, or discussing vaccine injury, or the horrific epidemic of autism. That is no longer allowed. Instead we get garbage like “Neurotribes.” David Kirby’s book, “Evidence of Harm” was published in 2005. Were it published today, what would be the NYT’s reaction? You can bet they would have Offit slam it.

  • Gordon Watson

    since we’re still on-about “fake news”, a perfect example of how it’s done, is : the item in the National Post to do with prosecution of shepherdess Montana Jones and “scofflaw” [ sic ] Michael Schmidt. A mere 4 years later, charges against them were tossed out of Court. The NP item reported that 10 of the sheep which were the focus of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency action, had been “dead or dying” when the thing started. But that’s a false statement = a smear tactic, calculated to leave readers with the notion that the flock of Shropshires was diseased, thus justifying what the CFIA did.

    In fact, subsequent analysis PROVED none of the sheep ever did have the disease / scrapie. In fact ; the CFIA was supremely embarrassed as material disclosed via the criminal procedure, revealed official-dumb perpetrating rank abuse of process … well-aware that their ‘evidence’ was so tainted FROM THE START as to be unreliable. the National Post vaunts itself as “the best-designed newspaper in the world” … not the most accurate, though….

    Just a simple oversight? Just the merest co-inkydink that the print media in Canada are making noises lately, that they need, thus deserve, to be on ‘the govt. teat’ in order to survive, financially? No = the apparent mis-information about Montana Jones / Michael Schmidt is sophisticated DIS-information … what “professional journalism” looks like when the giant print media are beholden to govt. advertising accounts for their very survival. Details at The Bovine dot wordpress website.

    • Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard


      If you would write a ‘straight’ version of this comment, I would be delighted to share it with others. I can’t really do that as written but the topic and your facts and points are things that I would like to share with others.


      • Gordon Watson

        Mr Odegaard …. as for being able to rewrite it “straight” … I cleave to the Gonzo School of Journalism, as personified by Hunter S Thompson = his masterpiece Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Now 4 decades on, I am beyond redemption. Best source for the explanation of the travesty visited by the CFIA on Montana Jones / Michael Schmidt, is : the website of theBovine dot wordpress.

        • Ingvar Ingvar

          I guess, 40 years would put you there. Nuts.

          Thank you for your kind and frank reply.

          Maybe there’s a budding copy editor in the house that could give it a try. It would be good for practice in a way.

          I like to be able to forward good stuff to others and as everyone else, have only so much time.


    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      Hard to know if it’s disinformation, or simply a reporter more inclined to believe info from “the authorities” than from others. We see that all the time, in both countries, where reporters give priority to public health officials’ assessments. Either way, it’s bad.

      • Ingvar Ingvar

        Here is an instance of the ‘press’ failing their ONLY legitimate job (to honestly inform on matters). Scott Johnson takes up the slack.

        As important as this article, perhaps much more important, is his series (also at powerlineblog) on the “Minnesota Men” trial (MMT) for which if “The Pulitzer” meant a damn thing for liberty, Scott Johnson, a lawyer, would be awarded one.

        His summary piece on MMT is the best place to start because he details the damning NEGLIGENCE with which the New York Times ‘covered’ the trial and deceived its readers in a most dangerous way with what little coverage they provided. Anyone depending on the NYT is a lemming on a cliff march.

        With that, have a wonderful day!


  • Gary Ogden

    David: Good article about fake “fake news” from Glenn Greenwald:
    Also the December Extra! (FAIR newsletter) is a good read.

  • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

    With the advent of the Internet gone are the days when aircrafts dropped millions of propaganda sheets all over the countryside… or perhaps not.

    Who is without sin when it comes to fake news or attempting to influence the outcome of an election etc.? The American government is currently accusing the Russians of influencing the outcome of the US election… I suppose the United States government have not engaged in such tactics? The hypocrisy is blinding and the media play right into it! Indeed, as the article Gary referenced states with respect to “fake news”, “because the phrase lacks any clear definition, it is essentially useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship”.

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      Sorry, Ken, but your assessment is false equivalency at its worst. Dropping gory propaganda leaflets in a war zone to aid allies may be distasteful, but there is no comparison to what the Russians appear to have done to influence the U.S. election. What appears to have happened is they hacked both the Democratic and Republican party sites, but released publicly only the Democratic results. In using cyber warfare to influence the U.S. election, they committed what can only be properly labeled an act of war. If we had politicians with any spine, we would be turning off the electricity in Moscow, disabling their transport systems, and taking other cyberwar reprisal actions. But Obama has no spine. And most alarming, Trump seems to have been in cahoots, and is now not only raging against the CIA, but seems likely to conduct a purge of CIA once he gets into office. Very depressing to watch America’s march toward fascism.

      • D. Smith D. Smith

        David, David, David. I’m ashamed of you for believing such utter, ridiculous trash. You’ve linked to three of the worst sources I can imagine. I had no idea you bought into such nonsense.

      • Gary Ogden

        David: “Saying it is true doesn’t make it true. They have to provide proof . . . So let’s see the evidence.” So says Bill Binney, the former technical director of the NSA, concerning the alleged Russian hacks of the DNC. According to Jeffrey Carr, of the cybersecurity firm Taia Global, “It’s almost impossible to confirm attribution in cyberspace.” This is clearly nothing more than an allegation, and it sure looks to me like a psyop. That the New York Times treats it like a verified truth does not mean anything. They offer no evidence. It’s just as likely that an insider or a freelance hacker leaked the Podesta emails. As far as I know, nobody has made a credible claim that the emails are fake. And didn’t Wikileaks perform a public service by publishing them? Isn’t this what journalists used to do? The Pentagon Papers? Watergate? It would be very easy to make the case that the DNC gave us Trump by sabotaging Bernie, who consistently lead Trump in a head-to-head match-up, unlike Hillary. The DNC, then, would be the one meddling in the election. An allegation like this, and a once-respected newspaper like the Times publishing it as if it were fact is a deep insult to American voters who are thoroughly fed up with Washington corruption, and neither as stupid nor as ignorant as the political class thinks we are. The cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, who first brought us this allegation offered evidence so ludicrous it’s a mystery why anyone took them seriously.

        • David Gumpert David Gumpert

          I didn’t say it is true, I said “it appears” to have happened. (See my above response to Smith, and link, with quotes from Republican senators expressing deep concern, after hearing the intelligence briefings.) But I’d like to see congressional hearings, and hear from intelligence people who have investigated.

          It’s funny, didn’t hear any of these objections when FBI director re-opened email investigation of Hillary. In fact, Hillary said she was fine with it, since she was sure she’d be cleared (as she was). Now, CIA expressing concerns about Russia-Trump connections, and you’re apoplectic, with endless rationalizations. And Trump going crazy. If he had nothing to hide, wouldn’t he simply welcome completion of the investigation?

      • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

        I suppose I’ve read to many John le Carré espionage books. Correct if I’m wrong are you suggesting that the American government hasn’t interfered in a foreign countries election in order to influence the results of an election?

        “The U.S. Has Been Meddling In Other Countries’ Elections For A Century. It Doesn’t Feel Good.”

        • David Gumpert David Gumpert

          No question, U.S. has a bad track record in taking sides in other countries’ elections. That’s a little different (or a lot different) than what seems to have been going on here. I guess I’d be a lot less upset if Russian oligarchs had donated $$$ to Trump, or put out fake news to support him, or any of a number of other manipulations. But using cyberwarfare, trying to make it look like the interference came from other countries, then engaging in endless denials is different. It is warfare, and seems as if U.S. should respond in kind.

        • D. Smith D. Smith

          @ Ken: The USA has been meddling in its OWN ELECTIONS since the second President was installed. We just can’t help ourselves, never could, because we want to be “the controllers”. 😉

  • Gary Ogden

    David: Here is the link to the Jeffrey Carr blogpost:

  • Blesse\'d are the cheese makers

    Never argue with a liberal —

    Never argue with a liberal. Why? Because, what you are not going to get is an argument.

    By definition, an argument is a collected series of statements designed to establish a definite proposition. Arguments involve the presentation of facts and evidence from which one draws a conclusion. Implied within the concept of an argument is the potential that one might change his/her conclusion if he/she were to be presented with facts that contradict his/her argument.

    But liberals start with the conclusion. They don’t change their conclusions based on the facts and evidence; they change the facts and evidence based on the conclusion they want. This is why a 105 degree day is irrefutable proof of global warming, while a 60 degree day is irrefutable proof of global warming. As is a -20 degree day. And why a photo of a polar bear on a chunk of ice is irrefutable proof that one of the best swimmers in the wild kingdom was somehow in danger on that chunk of ice.

    Same goes for all of Hillary’s arguments as to why she didn’t win the election.

    Liberal: “Hillary won the popular vote so the Electoral College should be abolished.” Conservative: “She only arguably won the popular vote because of the votes in Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Chicago.” On the flip side, Trump won 2,626 counties in the US while Clinton won only 487.” That translates to 306 electoral votes for Trump and 232 for Clinton. So, based on Art. II, Section 1 of the US Constitution, Trump indeed won.
    But who cares about these little facts if you’re a liberal.

    Liberal: “The Russians hacked into the DNC and influenced the election, that’s why Hillary lost.”
    Conservative: “You do not have one iota of evidence to prove that allegation.”
    But who cares about this little non-fact if you’re a liberal.
    Liberal: “But the Washington Post and the NY Times say so.”
    Conservative: “Oh, please . . . ”

    Liberal: “It was all this ‘fake news’ that caused her to lose the election.”
    Conservative: “Once again, I can cite a fake news item coming from the left for every one you claim coming from the right.”
    But who cares about this little fact if you’re a liberal.

    To conclude, to quote Kurt Schlichter:

    “Liberals are only concerned with argument, or what superficially appears to be argument, as a rhetorical bludgeon designed to beat you into submission. They aren’t trying to change your mind. They don’t expect you to agree with them. They don’t even care whether or not you grow to love Big Brother. They just want you to shut up and let them run rampant. If you understand that, you’ll be fine.”

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      Cheese Maker, you are so obsessed with “liberals” vs “conservatives” that you are missing my point. I am worried that we are about to install a traitor as commander in chief. Don’t think we’ve knowingly done that before. In that circumstance, Pence or Ryan would be preferable (even though they have certainly collaborated with the suspected traitor). First and foremost, the president must be a patriot.

      • Blesse\'d are the cheese makers

        Mr. G —

        I totally understand your point and understand your worry regarding “installing a traitor as commander in chief.” I also absolutely agree with you that “the president must be a patriot.”

        But that begs this question. From my view, although I don’t believe the people “knowingly” installed him as such, our current president has proven (to me and many others from my political viewpoint) that that is indeed what happened — he turned out to be a traitor intent on the destruction of America as we know it.

        As for Hillary Clinton. Again, from my political perspective, she has proven time and again that she and her crook husband have committed many traitorous acts, via the Clinton Foundation scam and “Pay to Play” to separate email servers and Bengazi.

        I offer a couple of examples for you:

        I realize that you likely disagree with this assertion. That’s okay. My point is this. You and I both see these things from different perspectives which leads us to different conclusions. You base your beliefs on the pundits and information out there that fits within your belief system. I base my beliefs on the pundits and information out there that fits within the parameters of my belief system. This sometimes leads us to two polar opposite conclusions. Interestingly enough, we are both seeking the truth.

        At this stage, history will be the judge as to which one of us was closer to the truth.

        I think you have written some great books on raw milk and the local food movement and I support you 100 percent in that realm.

        We just see things differently from a political perspective. That’s what’s great about America.

        • David Gumpert David Gumpert

          Good points. My main disagreement is about the Clinton’s problems. Corrupt, yes, but not traitorous. A fine line can separate the two traits, for sure. But it’s a type of corruption that has characterized our leaders of the last 40 years or so–you use your government “service” to subsequently cash in on private industry riches. The Clintons personified that coda, but it extends outward to agency heads and sub-heads. It’s certainly motivated food and ag regulators to favor big corporations, at the expense of small producers. Certainly the Clintons chasing $$$ led to widespread disillusionment.

          Nothing would please me more than to see Trump shut down the revolving door system that turns government servants into money grubbers par excellence, and has long made a mockery of JFK’s admonition, “Ask not what your country can do for you….” But all I’ve seen is more retired generals and billionaires named to top positions, and total defensiveness about this major security breach and put-down of the intelligence community that supposedly spends billions to keep us ahead of security threats.

          • Pete

            Can you say Chinagate? Selling nuclear secrets to China for campaign cash. That is espionage if not treason.

            Or how about accepting money from Russia in exchange for allowing a Russian company to snap up a bunch of our Uranium.

            You are worried about Trumps potentially treasonous actions, without evidence, while ignoring the Clinton’s actual treason.

      • Gordon Watson

        if the litmus test is ‘patriot-ism’, then … had the Democrats won the election … the suitability of Joe Biden would’ve been very much in question. A heartbeat away from the presidency, yet with dual citizenship.

        … next time you cross paths with him, ask Mr Biden what he’d do, if he were Commander in Chief, and he was in the War Room, faced with a conflict between America’s interests, versus the Israelis’ ? Jesus said “no man can serve two masters”.

        • David Gumpert David Gumpert

          Roy Cohn would be turning in his grave if he knew how his protege, Donald Trump, is kissing Russia’s rear end. Roy Cohn, for the uninitiated, was Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s hatchet man in his brutal hunt for communists in sympathy with the Russians during the 1950s. You could be blacklisted for taking out a library book on Russia, in Roy Cohn’s world. Trump learned from Cohn everything he knows about attacking any and all “enemies”. You of the long memories, Watson, sure turn easily with the wind.

  • Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

    Related topic: Organic Pastures Dairy does something I characterize as backward-thinking. To wit:

    Instead of the wonderful tub, OPDC now wraps (wraps!) their butter in little quarter-pound sticks and then wraps again (wraps again!!) four at a time in a one pound paper box. Oh joy.
    Negative on butter sticks I say! The tub is best way to package butter that I have ever used. I use butter every day in my kitchen. If I want the butter soft, I put the tub out of the fridge for a while. I use a spoon to ‘decant’ the butter. I can measure/estimate if I need to. Why on earth would they do this? Go to the trouble (extra expense) to package butter in (tiny, little) quarter-pound (!) chunks that I have to unwrap, one-by-one by one-by-one …… (!!!!)? Or unwrap a soft butter stick! The sales staff of Trepko must have been pretty damn good. One wonders if they sprung for the Trepko model 800 Series “Brick Forming & Wrapping” machinery? Maybe OPDC got the Bock DKS 2000 “wrapping machine”? Perhaps an AB FASA machine?
    I have OFTEN thought how great the tubs are as I use them. I grew up with butter in those quarter pound chunks. (Except Trader Joe’s sold a one pound brick of butter, at least they did.) Now I will think how short sighted OPDC is with their resources and what they force me to waste time on in the kitchen because of this, this ERROR. Nuts.

    Is this a tempest in a teapot?

    Have a wonderful Sunday everybody,

    Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

    • Emma Gardner

      “Wonderful tub” – single-use hydrocarbon plastic? Please no. Personally, I’ll only buy butter in bricks or sticks. Not in plastic tubs – on principle. Paper is a renewable resource and keeps our mills in business. As for letting butter soften, I keep a few ounces of butter out on the counter in a bowl, always soft and available.

      No need to ever unwrap a *soft* butter stick. Unwrap when cold, put into a butter dish, and let it warm up.

      Better yet, instead of buying it, the best butter is homemade – and the best recipe I’ve found is to use fresh grass-fed raw cream, Danisco Choozit Probat 222 culture, and some sea salt to taste. And, let it culture at room temperature for a few days. Perfection!

      • Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

        Emma Gardner, you write: “… Paper is a renewable resource and keeps our mills in business. …”

        If I can fairly presume that you make this point in contrast to the understanding that petroleum is not a renewable resource, then let me point out that by the Russian-Ukranian theory of petroleum genesis, petroleum is also a renewable resource. A theory that has been tested successfully in the laboratory and proven in oil field production. cf.

        Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

  • Mark Mcafee Mark Mcafee


    Have faith….I appreciate your objective investigative reporting and truthful sharing of news as you see it. Some how this place has become a collection the who’s who of ultra conservative sometimes nameless conspiracy embracers.

    I know that raw milk is apolitical and has doors in all houses and does not have an opinion…..its just timeless good food. Keep on reporting….there is a bigger audience that reads and appreciates your words and opinions. Going forward….good solid reporting with deep due diligence to assure accuracy will become rare and even more essential. It is as if….the Trump win has emboldened the alt right closet dwellers and provided liscence to come out and really get crazy.

    The moral, the ethical, the humanitarian, the truthful….must persevere in spite of the very effective Russian hack job on our democracy and its people. You are part of that light…

    Keep the light on buddy.

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      One of the things that is truly astounding about the ultra conservatives is that their spiritual leader, Ronald Reagan, had total contempt for the Russians. He and his fellow conservatives would accuse the Democrats of being too soft on the Russians, too eager to negotiate. And there’s this nearly total amnesia, or ignorance, of history. Of how we nearly went to nuclear war in 1962 because Russia put nuclear missiles in Cuba, and Pres Kennedy insisted they be removed. Of how the Russians crushed freedom movements in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and elsewhere, before the Soviet republic collapsed in 1989. Of their totalitarian ways stretching way way back to before last century. Somehow the ultras think because Putin rides around bareback on a horse, without his shirt, that he must be some kind of neat guy. He grew up in Soviet KGB (intelligence) and is a tyrant who crushes any and all dissent. There can only be one explanation for why Putin wants Trump–a comrade in arms.

      But raw milk isn’t always apolitical. It’s been highly charged politically. We still have no idea how the new regime will come out on that. I fear with all the billionaires and generals becoming cabinet members that raw milk won’t get a lot of tolerance. And I fear that Trump’s backers won’t care, so swept up are they in the new mania.

      • Gordon Watson

        first of all, Ronnie was a consummate actor, that’s why he was picked for the job. Previously, the extent of his political experience, was, first of all … as the voice of Jimminy Cricket – so millions of Americans had grown up programmed to accept his heartwarming style, and second : as the head of the completely communist Screen Actors Guild. Regan’s genius was = pretending to be “conservative”, even while starting America down the road to ruin, financially.

        you’d do much better in your analysis, Mr Gumpert, were you to distinguish “the Russians” from “the communists”. “Amnesia or ignorance of history” ?? Start with the fact that nation was overtaken by a very small cabal of outsiders, directed out of the usurers’ HQ in NY City. At the Trial of the Nazi War Criminals in Nuremberg, they didn’t have a crime known to international law with which to charge the Defendants. So lead Prosecutor Robert Jackson, came up with the notion that in the Third Reich, Germany had been seized by a criminal conspiracy. Any intelligent person who gets the facts about the assassination of JFK, soon realizes that the CIA effected a coup on Nov 22 1963, and have been running the joint, since.

        as for Donald Trump = he may be a tyrant-in-the-making, but he’s OUR tyrant. Come the crash of 2017, Americans will need someone who presents the image of strength, to see us through very heavy weather. Trump has been installed as the guy who will not hesitate to call out the National Guard, maybe even the Army, to maintain the composure of white people, in the face of race riots fomented by communist agitators.

        I predict that next time some little raw milk producer gets leaned-on, President Trump will dispense with an Executive Orders … just send the thug-bureaucrats packing, with a few of his patented Tweets

        • Joseph Heckman

          There was progress today in committee hearing at New Jersey State House Annex in support of the bill to legalize raw milk sale. The bill passes committee and moves on to the next step in the legislative process.

        • David Gumpert David Gumpert

          A little historical revisionism, Gordon? The old Soviet Union’s largest single component was Russia. Putin is a link from the old “communist” days (he rose to lieut col in the KGB, Soviet’s Union’s CIA) to head the current (fascist?) regime. The difference between communist and fascist is very fine. Remember, Stalin and Hitler were allies for a time in 1939-40.

          My question….I can see why Russia wants close relations with U.S. Endless riches, technology, innovation, etc.. But what does the U.S. get from Russia? It’s bankrupt, has nothing to offer but oil (which we now have plenty of) and vodka, to go with thuggery of its rulers. Must be some kind of tab Trump has run up with the Russians, that he needs the U.S. treasury and military to pay it back.

          • Gordon Watson

            as the glorious leader … how is Vladmir Putin any different in principle, than George Bush Senior, former head of Spooks Inc. = the CIA ?

            best explanation for the meaning of “fascism” came from Wilhelm Reich, who’d seen it up-close and personal … in the 3rd Reich, which he fled, and in the US of A, where the FDA seized his books and burned them by court order, then imprisoned him for curing cancer. Reich coined the terms “red fascism” for Bolshevik style communism, and “black fascism” for the type practiced by the Nazis. I differentiate them as “international social-ism” versus “national social-ism”. Take a look at the bundle of rods bound with a ligature adorning the wall on each side of the Chair of the House of Representatives … = the Fasces = the symbol of the ancient Roman Republic. That’s been there since before Donald Trump was born.

            Mr Gumpert : apparently you didn’t get my point in the triple witness I set out = of countries which were overtaken by a cabal of criminal conspirators. Despite Eli Weitzel’s famous hate literature, “Night” in which he advocated that ‘every person ought to keep a part of his heart hating Germans”, right-minded people know that the countrymen are not responsible for what tyrants do when they seize power. Particularly : war crimes. Do you feel responsible for the atrocities committed by George Bush father and son, in Iraq? Cassius Clay figured it out = he proclaimed “no Vietnamese ever called me nigger’ “…. The Russians don’t hate us, nor do we hate them. I’m sorry to see you’re sucked-in to the made-for-media imbroglio … I had you pegged as smarter than that.

          • David Gumpert David Gumpert

            Watson, you even distort Elie Wiesel to fit your perverted view of history. “Night” was anything but “hate literature”–rather, testimony to man’s ability to retain humanity in the most brutal conditions. Wiesel lived a life dedicated to remembrance and reconciliation. Germany, you may be aware, has long been one of Israel’s strongest supporters.

            As I figured, no one has explained what we stand to gain from allowing the Russians to continue gaining influence, and territory, in Europe. They rule with an iron fist (aided by Russian mafia, toughest underworld anywhere), and destroy economically everything they touch. I know what’s in it for Trump–he wins the presidency, and he continues to reap $$$ for his business empire. But what’s in it for the rest of us? Oh, wait, I know, restoration of white supremacy.

            By the way, here’s best explanation of differences between fascism, communism, capitalism:
            Communism: You have two cows. You give them to the government, and the government then gives you some milk.
            Fascism: You have two cows. You give them to the government, and the government then sells you some milk.
            Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

          • Gordon Watson

            do I have to go find the page number and edition, in order to substantiate that Weisel did, in fact, urge hatred of individuals, because of their ethnicity ?! If that isn’t the worst kind of racism, I don’t know what is.

            Being conversant with section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada, I can tell you that his work “NIght” certainly qualifies as hate speech in here. Believe it or not, I want to get back to REAL MILK … so I won’t bother citing you the court case where Weizel had to pay damages to the guy from whom he plagiarized the main theme of “Night”. Unhappily, Mr Gumpert, you’ve given me one more reason to take my opinion of your intellect down another notch : having missed my point ( on purpose?) about hating people as opposed to the mis-leaders of tyranny at a given point in history.

            a lot of great comedians were, and are, Jews. Apparenly that ain’t one of your talents … your poor rendition of that old joke about the cows misses one of its key points = the commies take the cows at gunpoint.

          • Gordon Watson

            well, seeing as you’re on about ‘fake news’, here’s a textbook example ; the expose of how Elie Weisel is a fraud ; the essay by Dr Henry Makow entitled “Auschwitz Survivor Claims Elie Wiesel is an Impostor” fascinating stuff = finding out how badly we were bamboozled about so much of history … but … let’s get back to the politics of raw milk

          • Joseph Heckman

            Reich never made any claim about curing cancer.

          • Gordon Watson

            Wilhelm Reich was smart enough to – at least – restrain himself from saying that the orgone accumulator would cure cancer. Otherwise, he did voice the idea that cancer could be cured by de-constructing the ‘body armour’ so as to let orgone energy flow properly. He was seeing tumours disintegrate in patients, in days, but the problem he had not solved, was : ridding the body of so much waste, that quickly.
            In his book “Goat Milk Magic”, Dr Bernard Jensen postulated that milk taken from a goat/ cow/ sheep, has an electric charge, which dissipates within an hour or so. My guess, is : rather than simply an electronic phenomenon, such is what Reich termed “orgone energy”.

            Animals …including us … are orgone accumulators. Fluid milk is a vector for delivering life energy to the calf ; kid ; lamb … baby. Wilhelm Reich was a century ahead of his time, analyzing the character of the Tyrant in power, along with his enablers. Reich’s most important contribution was : explaining the character of someone who hates Life itself, thus, why minions of the corrupt state, work so hard to undo those who are Life-givers.

            On this planet, it’s LIFE against DEATH. Until one has the measure of the Enemy, he’s just a child in the Roman arena of politics …. up against Gladiators who hate us to the core of their beings. It is most important to know that – at the very end of his life, days before he was due to get out of prison, before he had a heart attack – Wilhelm Reich made a confession of faith in Jesus Christ as his saviour.

        • Blesse\'d are the cheese makers

          Correction please, Mr. Watson.

          The original voice of Jiminy Cricket was Cliff Edwards, who was awarded as a Disney Legend for voice-acting and who was the voice of the legendary song, “When you wish upon a star.”

          Mr. Reagan never did the voice of Jiminy. However, Mr. Reagan did serve as the host of “Death Valley Days” for a short stint in the early 60’s.

  • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

    I trust the NSA, CIA and FBI about as much as I do a cat, and that doesn’t speak very highly of these alphabet agencies. Which one of these agencies advised that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Did that turn out to be true? And now much of the media is taking that agencies word at face value with respect to Russia’s so-called interference in the 2016 US election?

    Indeed, Edward Snowden did the American people and the world a great favor by exposing the American government’s clandestine operations against it’s own citizens and world governments at large. He should be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Something tells me that John F Kennedy and other civil rights leaders would have sympathized with Mr. Snowden. Perhaps this whole “election interference” kerfuffle has a lot to do with getting back at Russia for giving political asylum to Snowden?

    As I stated earlier… “Who is without sin”? “The hypocrisy is blinding”. Clearly, “what goes around comes around.”

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      They screwed up Iraq. Snowden exposed abuses. Before that, missed Pearl Harbor, 9-11. But they’ve also gotten a number of things right in heading off terrorist attacks. The reality is that, love them or hate them, we depend on them to help fight war on terror and protect American interests. Every country has its own intelligence service, and you weaken-compromise it at potentially significant risk.

      • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

        David, If there is any merit to the statement that, Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely”, then there has to be a limit as to how far these alphabet agencies can go. Indeed, they seem to be making a habit of exceeding that limit, with the blessing of the judicial system, whether it is in food regulations (raw milk in particular), medical mandates (vaccine regulations), parental rights, private property rights, and religious freedom etc. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves, why there is such disconnect from the US constitution, which should in essence keep in check overzealous government institutions? Might it be because the US Constitution, “a body of fundamental principles” or absolute moral precedents is in direct conflict with societies current relativism, utilitarianism based morality? This conflict exists in both political camps, especially in the camp leaning to the left.
        If only governments and the media would place as much effort into nurturing freedom as they currently do with controlling everything from A to Z.
        Malcolm X stated, “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses”. Yes… and if self-serving “fake news” is there modus operandi then were in deep sh_t.

        • David Gumpert David Gumpert

          Ken, absolutely agree. I truly wish the new administration would use its power to reduce the power of the alphabet agencies in areas where it’s been abused, like in regulation of small farms. The problem of over-regulation has become common to both American political parties. because of their dependence on campaign contributions from big biz.

  • Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

    I’m Telling You Why, Hitler Is Coming To Town. Or not. Scott Adams discusses this possibility.

    “The Campaign Hallucinations Are Lifting
    Posted December 14th, 2016 @ 9:40am in #Trump

    About half of the citizens of the United States think they elected a president who will “drain the swamp” in Washington DC and negotiate good trade deals for the public. But the other half believes they are living in 1930s Germany and the next Hitler just came to office. Those are very different movies, yet we all sit in the same theater at the same time. It’s trippy.

    As I often say, the human brain didn’t evolve to give us a clear understanding of our reality because we don’t need it to survive as a species. All we need to do is survive long enough to procreate. As long as we can still make babies, it doesn’t matter that we are all experiencing different movies. You can be living in 1930s Germany in your movie and I can be living in 2016 trying to make America Great again, yet the population of humans is still growing. So living in different movies doesn’t matter as much as you’d think.

    Immediately after the election was decided, protests against Trump popped up in several cities. Protesting makes perfect sense if you think Hitler just came to power in your country. You must stop Hitler!

    But the days went by and the protests fizzled out.


    If you REALLY believe Hitler just came to power in the United States, why would you stop protesting? What are you doing that is more important than stopping Hitler?????????

    So why did the protests fizzle out? I find this question fascinating. So should you. Here are some explanations I can imagine:

    1. Protesters decided that accepting Hitler as their leader was better than missing classes or skipping work.


    2. Protesters have now seen enough counter-evidence to diminish their hallucination of living in 1930s Germany.
    I think the better explanation is the second one. Look at how much counter-evidence is accumulating:

    1. Anti-Trump Republicans are making peace and supporting Trump. Would they do that if they thought he was Hitler?

    2. Foreign leaders show every sign of being willing and able to work with Trump. Wouldn’t they be yelling “Hitler!” if they thought he was one?

    3. Trump continues to disavow White Nationalists when asked. Would Hitler do that?

    4. Trump has moderated his more extreme views on immigration, waterboarding, and trying to jail Clinton. That doesn’t sound very Hitlerish.

    5. Trump’s public demeanor has transformed from campaign mode to governing mode. He looks more serious now.

    6. A year ago it would have seemed ridiculous for a president to be tweeting provocative things several times a day. But now it looks almost normal. We even see the benefit of it because the media is a filter as much as a source of information.

    7. Trump keeps meeting with people that opposed him, and both sides seem pleased with those meetings. That isn’t very Hitlerish.

    8. Trump is non-interventionist. That doesn’t seem very Hitlerish.

    9. Trump has done a better job of managing the country’s expectations and optimism than any prior president-elect. Consumer confidence and the stock market are up. It’s hard to dislike any of that.

    10. Trump keeps demonstrating that he likes black people. Kanye West is the latest example. Football great Jim Brown also met with Trump and had good things to say. None of that makes sense if you think Trump is a racist.

    11. Trump’s cabinet picks might not please everyone, but they are serious people for serious jobs.
    Every time Trump does something reasonable – and he is doing a lot of that now – the hallucination of living in 1930s Germany weakens. I’d say it’s about half gone already.

    Every time Trump does something reasonable – and he is doing a lot of that now – the hallucination of living in 1930s Germany weakens. I’d say it’s about half gone already.”

    Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

    • Bob

      People that opposed him know it’s better to stay on his good side. We’ve seen what happens if you upset mr. Trump, like the union head that was harassed and received death threats by Trump’s twitter followers. Trump vowed to bomb the shit out of ISIS (as if it’s a country). Seems a bit interventionist to me. The meeting with Kanye West is hardly proof that the guy isn’t a racist, but it does make nice press, doesn’t it? Got you all choked up. Ebony and Ivory. Then take a look at Trumps past record of denying blacks access to his buildings. The stock market is up (for now) possibly because Trump promises to eliminate banking regulations. Can’t wait to see how that works out. It did so well for us when Clinton eliminated Glass-Steagal. I see his current “victory” rallies with chanting sycophants as reminiscent of those rallies in Germany. And the eagerness of his fans (that’s what he calls his supporters because he still thinks he’s in a game show) to threaten anyone he criticizes as a throwback to the brownshirts that would harass anyone that didn’t salute when they marched down the city streets. When the protestors were out, people said, “why don’t they wait for Trump to take office before they protest.” Now you ask, “where are the protestors?”

  • Mark Mcafee Mark Mcafee

    I saw a tee shirt today it said :

    “Putin selected our president, that’s why it feels so f….ing scary and weird”.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>